What do you want to do with the little people?

[Gospel]

This society learned what to do about work-marginalized workers/citizens back during the industrial revolution. It's when the brown people tried the same thing that they forgot.

 

[RVonse]

I understand you are concerned about fairness. Fairness and free market capitalism are not really compatible. Free markets are not about fairness. It is muddled thinking to believe so. Societies can harness free markets to achieve goals but harnessed markets are not free markets.

I wasn't so much concerned about fairness as I was freedom. I've always believed that capitalists should be free to do with their ideas and capital as they see fit. But I also believe labor should have the same freedom to organize. Without that freedom the playing field is not balanced and level. Without that freedom our society rapidly disintegrates into the very conditions of wealth disparity described in the OP of this thread.

 

[Worldtraveller]

The fact that we need to even have this discussion is fucking depressing.

We need a minimum wage, indexed in such a way that we don't have to have this battle every time we want people to not have to suffer (I say we index it to congress' pay).

AND we need UBI. UBI should be indexed in such a way as to always be equal to minimum wage.

Taxes would start at 2.5X UBI, and be a exponential formula that caps out at ~95% around $2 million.

 

[Bomb#20]

That was not the only tool available. But tariffs are also not consistent with free market capitalism. To think otherwise is muddled thinking.

As far as your response that my thinking is muddled look again to the quote by Frank Lloyd Wright. He is exactly correct.

Mr Wright may be correct, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it is muddled thinking to claim to be for free market capitalism and free market labor and labor unions.

Why do you say that? In what way is a labor union not free market labor? What's the difference between a union and a corporation?

Suppose a bunch of autoworkers were to form a corporation that's in the business of supplying contract labor to other corporations, and it contracts with Ford to supply autoworkers, and it sends Ford its own shareholder/owner/employees to build Fords, and Ford pays them, and it, the amount their corporation contracted for on their behalf. Then in what substantive way is that different from the UAW? And in what substantive way is that different from Kelly Services, Inc.?

 

[Treedbear]

...
I understand you are concerned about fairness. Fairness and free market capitalism are not really compatible. Free markets are not about fairness. It is muddled thinking to believe so. Societies can harness free markets to achieve goals but harnessed markets are not free markets.

Of course it has something to do with fairness. Capitalism is an ideology, just as socialism and communism are. If I agree to live according to it, and I expect everyone in my society to abide by it, then there are rules and ethical codes that must apply to everyone. To the extent that they don't then it's not true to it's principles. It's corrupted and unfair. Capitalism doesn't function in a vacuum. And neither does freedom. Freedom is defined by the boundaries that protect it. It requires institutions with rules and courts and contracts. Therefore to the extent that the ability to practice capitalism isn't a realistic prospect for a large segment of the population we cannot claim to be or say we aspire to follow capitalist ideals. The definition of capital is having excess wealth above what is needed for basic survival. It means having the ability to save sufficient funds which can be invested in opportunities as they appear, and to have the incentive to participate in personal wealth management with the goal of bettering oneself and one's community. Otherwise there's no incentive to take care of that community or family or even one's self. And you wonder why inner cities get trashed? People don't take care of their homes when they don't have respect for themselves. They're told that they've failed as capitalists when in reality they were never given a chance. Fairness requires that everyone has a realistic prospect of having sufficient savings to take care of personal emergencies plus to advance themselves in some way that benefits society. As things stand there are large segments of the population trying to support themselves and their families at minimum wage and less and they don't even have the funds to invest in a can of beans when they go on sale. You're using a distorted idea of freedom if you mean it can't be regulated because anything with -ism on the end of it involves regulations. That's the way societies work.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Occasionally I say "you've got to answer a question now and again, so I'll wait for you to answer one of mine before I answer the next 20 of yours" and then the whole forum jumps down my throat for being evasive and dishonest. I don't know how you get away with your schtick. Probably because you make the rules.

I never asked you a question in this thread. As a matter of fact, I don't remember asking a question of you ever because I know there's a 90% chance it will be a dodge.

Fascinating how I can dodge questions that were never asked.

 

[Elixir]

Taxes would start at 2.5X UBI, and be a exponential formula that caps out at ~95% around $2 million.

You are going to put a lot of people out of work building yachts and private jets...

 

[ZiprHead]

Occasionally I say "you've got to answer a question now and again, so I'll wait for you to answer one of mine before I answer the next 20 of yours" and then the whole forum jumps down my throat for being evasive and dishonest. I don't know how you get away with your schtick. Probably because you make the rules.

I never asked you a question in this thread. As a matter of fact, I don't remember asking a question of you ever because I know there's a 90% chance it will be a dodge.

Fascinating how I can dodge questions that were never asked.

Yeah, no one else has ever asked you a question.

Do you wonder why your posts are considered the most dishonest here?

 

[laughing dog]

...
I understand you are concerned about fairness. Fairness and free market capitalism are not really compatible. Free markets are not about fairness. It is muddled thinking to believe so. Societies can harness free markets to achieve goals but harnessed markets are not free markets.

Of course it has something to do with fairness. Capitalism is an ideology, just as socialism and communism are. If I agree to live according to it, and I expect everyone in my society to abide by it, then there are rules and ethical codes that must apply to everyone. To the extent that they don't then it's not true to it's principles. It's corrupted and unfair. Capitalism doesn't function in a vacuum. And neither does freedom. Freedom is defined by the boundaries that protect it. It requires institutions with rules and courts and contracts. Therefore to the extent that the ability to practice capitalism isn't a realistic prospect for a large segment of the population we cannot claim to be or say we aspire to follow capitalist ideals. The definition of capital is having excess wealth above what is needed for basic survival. It means having the ability to save sufficient funds which can be invested in opportunities as they appear, and to have the incentive to participate in personal wealth management with the goal of bettering oneself and one's community. Otherwise there's no incentive to take care of that community or family or even one's self. And you wonder why inner cities get trashed? People don't take care of their homes when they don't have respect for themselves. They're told that they've failed as capitalists when in reality they were never given a chance. Fairness requires that everyone has a realistic prospect of having sufficient savings to take care of personal emergencies plus to advance themselves in some way that benefits society. As things stand there are large segments of the population trying to support themselves and their families at minimum wage and less and they don't even have the funds to invest in a can of beans when they go on sale. You're using a distorted idea of freedom if you mean it can't be regulated because anything with -ism on the end of it involves regulations. That's the way societies work.

You misunderstand. I simply said that unions are inconsistent with free market labor. That does not imply any desired level of regulation.

 

[laughing dog]

That was not the only tool available. But tariffs are also not consistent with free market capitalism. To think otherwise is muddled thinking.

As far as your response that my thinking is muddled look again to the quote by Frank Lloyd Wright. He is exactly correct.

Mr Wright may be correct, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it is muddled thinking to claim to be for free market capitalism and free market labor and labor unions.

Why do you say that? In what way is a labor union not free market labor?

Free markets operate with no barriers to entry or exit. Unions typically employ barriers to entry (into the union).

 

[Treedbear]

...
I understand you are concerned about fairness. Fairness and free market capitalism are not really compatible. Free markets are not about fairness. It is muddled thinking to believe so. Societies can harness free markets to achieve goals but harnessed markets are not free markets.

Of course it has something to do with fairness. Capitalism is an ideology, just as socialism and communism are. If I agree to live according to it, and I expect everyone in my society to abide by it, then there are rules and ethical codes that must apply to everyone. To the extent that they don't then it's not true to it's principles. It's corrupted and unfair. Capitalism doesn't function in a vacuum. And neither does freedom. Freedom is defined by the boundaries that protect it. It requires institutions with rules and courts and contracts. Therefore to the extent that the ability to practice capitalism isn't a realistic prospect for a large segment of the population we cannot claim to be or say we aspire to follow capitalist ideals. The definition of capital is having excess wealth above what is needed for basic survival. It means having the ability to save sufficient funds which can be invested in opportunities as they appear, and to have the incentive to participate in personal wealth management with the goal of bettering oneself and one's community. Otherwise there's no incentive to take care of that community or family or even one's self. And you wonder why inner cities get trashed? People don't take care of their homes when they don't have respect for themselves. They're told that they've failed as capitalists when in reality they were never given a chance. Fairness requires that everyone has a realistic prospect of having sufficient savings to take care of personal emergencies plus to advance themselves in some way that benefits society. As things stand there are large segments of the population trying to support themselves and their families at minimum wage and less and they don't even have the funds to invest in a can of beans when they go on sale. You're using a distorted idea of freedom if you mean it can't be regulated because anything with -ism on the end of it involves regulations. That's the way societies work.

You misunderstand. I simply said that unions are inconsistent with free market labor. That does not imply any desired level of regulation.

If you say so, but it seemed to me that you were making a more general statement.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why do you say that? In what way is a labor union not free market labor?

Free markets operate with no barriers to entry or exit. Unions typically employ barriers to entry (into the union).

Hmm. What counts as a barrier to entry in this context? You can't become an employee of Ford if Ford won't hire you; you can't become a shareholder of Ford unless a current Ford shareholder agrees to sell you his stock; does that make corporations not free market?

(If you're talking about a Canadian-style closed shop where the employer can't hire you if the union won't let you join the union, I think that's illegal in the U.S.)

 

[Worldtraveller]

Taxes would start at 2.5X UBI, and be a exponential formula that caps out at ~95% around $2 million.

You are going to put a lot of people out of work building yachts and private jets...

Nah, they would still be making a lot of money, just not tens of billions. And if some of the currently filthy rich have to cut back a little to maintain other things, I'm ok with that (and I spent the first 8 years of career in the VIP aircraft industry, I know quite a bit about it).

 

[RVonse]

Why do you say that? In what way is a labor union not free market labor?

Unions typically employ barriers to entry (into the union).

There has been no barrier to union entry in my lifetime. Unless it is a right to work state, its is really the exact opposite of that. You can not work at an auto plant without belonging to the UAW. You may not like the union or even go to their meetings, but your dues will legally come out of your check anyway. That's not barrier to entry, that's automatic membership.

 

[DBT]

Why do you say that? In what way is a labor union not free market labor?

Unions typically employ barriers to entry (into the union).

There has been no barrier to union entry in my lifetime. Unless it is a right to work state, its is really the exact opposite of that. You can not work at an auto plant without belonging to the UAW. You may not like the union or even go to their meetings, but your dues will legally come out of your check anyway. That's not barrier to entry, that's automatic membership.

Is that true across the board, or just a small percentage of firms?

 

[laughing dog]

There has been no barrier to union entry in my lifetime. Unless it is a right to work state, its is really the exact opposite of that. You can not work at an auto plant without belonging to the UAW.

That is a barrier to entry .

 

[ZiprHead]

There has been no barrier to union entry in my lifetime. Unless it is a right to work state, its is really the exact opposite of that. You can not work at an auto plant without belonging to the UAW. You may not like the union or even go to their meetings, but your dues will legally come out of your check anyway. That's not barrier to entry, that's automatic membership.

Is that true across the board, or just a small percentage of firms?

In my experience here in Michigan, which used to be heavily unionized, was the company hired you and you automatically become a union member when your probation period ended and you became fully employed. Of course that was before our dumbass republican governor made our state a right to work (for less) state and poisoned Flint.

 

[DBT]

He should be spending the rest of his days in a prison cell for what he did.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The fact that we need to even have this discussion is fucking depressing.

We need a minimum wage, indexed in such a way that we don't have to have this battle every time we want people to not have to suffer (I say we index it to congress' pay).

AND we need UBI. UBI should be indexed in such a way as to always be equal to minimum wage.

Taxes would start at 2.5X UBI, and be a exponential formula that caps out at ~95% around $2 million.

Categorically wrong--UBI replaces minimum wage!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That was not the only tool available. But tariffs are also not consistent with free market capitalism. To think otherwise is muddled thinking.

As far as your response that my thinking is muddled look again to the quote by Frank Lloyd Wright. He is exactly correct.

Mr Wright may be correct, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it is muddled thinking to claim to be for free market capitalism and free market labor and labor unions.

Why do you say that? In what way is a labor union not free market labor? What's the difference between a union and a corporation?

Suppose a bunch of autoworkers were to form a corporation that's in the business of supplying contract labor to other corporations, and it contracts with Ford to supply autoworkers, and it sends Ford its own shareholder/owner/employees to build Fords, and Ford pays them, and it, the amount their corporation contracted for on their behalf. Then in what substantive way is that different from the UAW? And in what substantive way is that different from Kelly Services, Inc.?

If a company behaved like a labor union it would be called price fixing and they would be punished and forced to stop doing it.